We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Commissions safe for now but big changes possible for financial advice industry

The Options Paper released yesterday for the review of the financial advisers regime provides three scenarios for change ranging from modest to sweeping.

However the “no commissions" bullet seems to have been dodged – for now.

We outline the reform proposals.

Structure of Options Paper

Because of the risk to New Zealand’s reputation created by the misuse of the Financial Service Providers Register (FSPR), particularly by off-shore controlled providers, the Government wants to clean up this area ahead of any further changes to the framework. Hence it has set an earlier date of 29 January 2016 for feedback on this issue.

The submission date for the broader reform proposals is 26 February 2016.

The options for change are presented both as “discrete elements” and in the form of three reform “packages”, each of which is more radical than the one before. For an effective summary see the Snapshot on pages 7 and 8 of the paper.

Broadly, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is satisfied that the two Acts – the Financial Advisers Act 2008 and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 – have lifted professional standards. But it considers that there is distinct room for improvement.

Discrete elements

The paper identifies eight broad areas for reform, with a range of options under each one. We identify the preferred options below with an “*”.

Option Two: clearly distinguish between advice and sales so consumers know when an adviser is not required to put the consumer’s interests first.

Option Three: create a suitability obligation under which a product cannot be sold unless it is deemed suitable to the customer’s needs.

Option Four: ban or restrict conflicted remuneration (commissions, soft commissions, sales targets with bonuses). MBIE states that this “is not currently a preferred option”.

Increasing competency requirements

Option One: require advisers to meet minimum entry standards.

Option Two: create a stepped pathway to adviser roles.

Option Three*: require Continuing Professional Development.

Option Four*: set competency standards through the licensing process.

Tools for ensuring ethical and competency compliance

Option One*: move to an entity licensing system where businesses must ensure that their employees comply with the relevant requirements (and, potentially, with a greater role for industry bodies). This would be akin to a compulsory QFE model.

Option Two: move to an individual licensing regime supported by a Code, like for AFAs.

Option Three: registration, like the RFA model.

Option Four*: align the regulatory powers under the FAA with those available under the Financial Markets Conduct Act - e.g. more reliance on administrative tools and less on litigation and criminal sanctions.

Improving disclosure requirements

Option One*: require all advisers to have the same disclosure requirements.

Option Two*: streamline disclosure to make it more meaningful to consumers.

Option Three: make further information available on the FSPR or other portal/websites.

Consumer access to dispute resolution

The only option* includes:

requiring financial advisers to inform customers at the time of a complaint which dispute resolution scheme they belong to and how to access it

amending the territorial scope of the legislation to require a legitimate connection to New Zealand

requiring trust and company service providers to register

limiting public access to all or parts of the FSP Register, and

converting the current Register into a non-public notification list.

Chapman Tripp commentary

There is a lot to digest in the Options Paper but it is apparent that MBIE has taken on board the feedback it received in the first consultation round and has some constructive suggestions.

A move towards allowing entities to provide “robo-advice” will be welcomed in some quarters, as will an overhaul of the disclosure regime and terminology. However the prospect of broader remuneration disclosure, conflicts management, licensing and competence standards may be less well received by some advisers already feeling the regulatory burden of the recent reforms.

A potential distinction between sales and advice was signalled in the Issues Paper but the indication in “Package 3” that salespersons would be limited to selling the products of a single aligned provider will narrow the potential opportunity for those seeking a low compliance option.

The possible removal of the “class” vs “personalised” divide is also likely to provoke discussion, particularly in light of the recently released report in which FMA committed to reviewing its October 2012 guidance note on the sale and distribution of KiwiSaver (see our earlier commentary here).

Chapman Tripp submitted on the Issues Paper and will be submitting on the Options Paper also.

Next steps

There is a lot on the table as some of the reform proposals would, if implemented, greatly affect many providers. As we have indicated in previous publications, the review is a unique opportunity to influence the future shape of the financial advisory industry. We urge you to engage in the policy-making process and will be happy to help.

Final recommendations will be with the Minister by the end of July 2016.

Related topic hubs

Compare jurisdictions: Insurance & Reinsurance

"The Newsfeeds are very relevant and topical. I gauge a firm’s expertise by the insight in their articles. In this respect, Lexology provides a buffet and I make the assessment. The quality of the newsfeeds is good and I like reading different firms' contributions on the same topic, as it provides an opportunity to compare their insights."